Qantas jet lands after part of engine falls off

[csv8]

I am flying QANTAS next week, to Perth!!!!!!!! wish me luck..coming in on a wing and a prayer!!!!!

[MexicanBatman]

no luck needed, they have flown about a billion people and havent killed anyone at their hand yet...

id wish you luck if you were flying on a certain indonesian airline though

[Danny]

It is curious that the Aircraft VH-OQA (Nancy Bird Walton) Was the first A380 delivered to Qantas (and also the one that most QF 380 Scale models are based on (well the ones I have anyway).

Wondering if this means that the other newer 380's will fail as well in succession based on their age from the date of delivery.

Ltd are the 380's back flying again? I haven't had the time to keep up with developments this week. I've been pretty busy.

Originally Posted by sandmanls1

this is scary looks like a close call the pilots were heroes

http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/q...-1225952363505

This reads to me like a typical media beat up with top class sensationalism. It can't have been that bad... Drawing parallels to Memphis Belle? Christ what a joke...

[flappist]

I suspect someone has a boot mark on they bum for ordering RR instead of GE.......

[fmc351]

I heard last night that the wing structure damage may write it off. I wonder what the excess is on something like that.

[MexicanBatman]

I believe they are self insured, so 380m isn't that what they cost? I'll bet they will fix it even if it costs more than a new one just like the 747 that should have been written off

[Danny]

Originally Posted by fmc351

I heard last night that the wing structure damage may write it off. I wonder what the excess is on something like that.

Not Nancy Bird! She's an Icon :( Our 1st A380, this is not a fitting way for her to go at all

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Danny

Not Nancy Bird! She's an Icon :( Our 1st A380, this is not a fitting way for her to go at all

It was a news item and they said "may", so could just be a desperate attempt at keeping a story going by using the obvious guess to justify it. It just made me lol when I thought about them ringing an insurer.

Originally Posted by MexicanBatman

I believe they are self insured, so 380m isn't that what they cost? I'll bet they will fix it even if it costs more than a new one just like the 747 that should have been written off

From what they said, if what they believe about damage is correct, it cant be fixed here and must be done at Airbus, and well that will only happen if they can fly it. At least thats the storyline anyway.

Theres obviously some people in the know here, so Im sure that will be cleared up.

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by fmc351

I heard last night that the wing structure damage may write it off. I wonder what the excess is on something like that.

The problem with repairing damaged wing spar and wing skins is that it is almost impossible to install bolt-on repair sections as what traditionally would have be done. The spar and wingbox skins on the A380 are machined parts, with thicknesses in all areas machined down to a minimum for weight reasons (the thicknesses vary all over these parts so that the local stresses at each location for the ultimate loadcases are close to the strength of the alloy). Drilling holes for the bolt-on repair sections in the relatively thin thicknesses would most likely not be possible, since the fatigue lives would then be insufficient at these new bolthole locations, due to the stress concentrations caused by the bolt holes and bolt loads.

The probable alternatives would be to replace the damaged wing front spar section(s) and skin sections with new items, whether thats possible would need to be determined. Or replacing the whole wing box section on that side. Either way, thats most likely a factory job. Big $$$ as well.

[fmc351]

Can they be pulled apart here and shipped? I would have thought shipping it back was an option. the implication of the story was if it cant be flown back to Airbus, its a goner.

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Can they be pulled apart here and shipped? I would have thought shipping it back was an option. the implication of the story was if it cant be flown back to Airbus, its a goner.

The wing would probably be too big for anything to ship it in. The manufactured wings go to France from Broughton UK on a barge. Even the skin sections are quite long therefore transportation difficult/impossible. And they need to be transported correctly as they could be easily damaged if lifted incorrectly.

If they were replacing the skin and spar sections, the alignment would also be critical, suitable jigs would need to be used to ensure correct alignment. Not sure if the factory jigs would be suitable even for this repair, being a completed wing and not in the sequence of normal assembly.

[74_XB_Ute]

I would imagine that aircraft structural engineers will come up with a repair for the damaged wing sections involving replacement of structural components. After F-111 A8-112 had an inflight fuselage fuel tank explosion the entire F2 fuselage bulkhead section was replaced. A new F2 bulkhead was CNC machined from billet alloy and fitted to the aircraft. The jet was basically split in two above the weapons bay to acheive this repair.

So like nitro xr says...the damaged wing sections could be replaced with new items. The A380 being an aircraft still in production the replacement structural components should be easily sourced unlike the F-111

[galaxy xr8]

I am flying with Qantas on Wed, to Brissie, then to Perth, then to Adelaide, then to Melb, I hope to be able to write back about my trip, lol..

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by 74_XB_Ute

I would imagine that aircraft structural engineers will come up with a repair for the damaged wing sections involving replacement of structural components. After F-111 A8-112 had an inflight fuselage fuel tank explosion the entire F2 fuselage bulkhead section was replaced. A new F2 bulkhead was CNC machined from billet alloy and fitted to the aircraft. The jet was basically split in two above the weapons bay to acheive this repair.

So like nitro xr says...the damaged wing sections could be replaced with new items. The A380 being an aircraft still in production the replacement structural components should be easily sourced unlike the F-111

errrrr hmmm hmmm . ( PLUG N PLAY) cough cough .

[GK]

Did a little googling and found this.

Emirates 380s to use Engine Alliance engines. Engine Alliance is a 50/50 partnership between GE and Pratt and Wittney.

http://www.ameinfo.com/138251.html

More detailed information about the engines here.

http://www.geae.com/engines/commerci...000/index.html

Quicklink to engine features here. Their engine is about 50/50 GE and P&W, based upon existing and proven technology.

http://www.enginealliance.com/gpfeat.html

GK

[flappist]

I heard they were going to fit 4 coyotes with a flash and wider wheels......

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by nitro xr

The probable alternatives would be to replace the damaged wing front spar section(s) and skin sections with new items, whether thats possible would need to be determined. Or replacing the whole wing box section on that side. Either way, thats most likely a factory job. Big $$$ as well.

Thinking more about it, it depends alot on the damage suffered. Replacing these parts may not be feasible for various reasons including cost of preparation to ferry the aircraft to where-ever, structural (fatigue and static stress) effect on the various parts when installing with the oversized fasteners required, and the overall cost of the repair and parts.
So it could well be a write-off. But Qantas dont like writing off aircraft, as we have seen with the B747 that over-ran the runway in Bangkok. They repaired it at great expense and I heard it flew like a dog after that. ltd would know more about that one. It will be interesting to see what they do with this A380 in the end.

[motomk]

Does Singapore Airlines maintain its own A380s in Singapore? Wouldn't they have enough heavy equipment to overhaul it with Airbuses help?

[Paxton]

Originally Posted by Sydney Morning Herald

A Qantas plane en route to Argentina has been forced to return to Sydney after "an issue with the aircraft's electrical system", a spokesman said.

QF17, which took off from Sydney Airport at 11.11am today with 199 passengers on board, turned around about one hour into the flight to Buenos Aires, a Qantas spokeswoman said.

The Boeing 747-400 plane, which was also carrying three flight and 18 cabin crew on board, landed at Sydney Airport at 1.22pm after priority clearance to land was given by air traffic control, a Qantas spokesman said.

"Engineers are inspecting the aircraft to determine the cause of the issue. Passengers have disembarked into the terminal building," the spokesman said in a statement.

"Reports that the aircraft lost pressure in the main cabin are incorrect. Oxygen supply to the cabin was unaffected."

The spokesman said the incident was report to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Air Transport Safety Bureau.

"Qantas regrets the inconvenience to passengers and will seek to make contingency arrangements for those affected

With today's problem, I think Qantas might be over-reacting, and the media is beating up every problem. An aeroplane is like anything, they all have their problems, and after the big one this month, the media are going to flog the rest of them like future dog food.

My sister got caught up in the problem. They were due to fly to SFO on Monday the 8th (on QF Standby tickets), but went on Friday the 5th, and flew SYD-NRT, then AA NRT-SFO. If they waited, the embargo on flights wouldn't have lifted, and their connections inside the states would have been missed. That being said, they didn't have any tickets booked on the 180s anyway. They were set to fly on 747s over and home.

[ebxr8240]

apparently they are changing there name to Boomerang...

[Ausfire]

Originally Posted by Paxton

With today's problem, I think Qantas might be over-reacting, and the media is beating up every problem. An aeroplane is like anything, they all have their problems, and after the big one this month, the media are going to flog the rest of them like future dog food.

.

Mate, how is Qantas over-reacting, its standard procedure to turn around, better to be safe than sorry hey. I work there and was one of the first on that plane, I have been to heaps of other other aircraft with same problem, but all turn out ok due to airline companies having these good procedures in place.

Biggest problem right now is the bloody Media, they could sink Qantas if they keep reporting every minor little incident.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Paxton

With today's problem, I think Qantas might be over-reacting, and the media is beating up every problem. An aeroplane is like anything, they all have their problems, and after the big one this month, the media are going to flog the rest of them like future dog food.

My sister got caught up in the problem. They were due to fly to SFO on Monday the 8th (on QF Standby tickets), but went on Friday the 5th, and flew SYD-NRT, then AA NRT-SFO. If they waited, the embargo on flights wouldn't have lifted, and their connections inside the states would have been missed. That being said, they didn't have any tickets booked on the 180s anyway. They were set to fly on 747s over and home.

I don't think you could say qantas (at least not flight crew) were 'over reacting' andrew. This is not because they are imune to the perception over recent issues but purely because that is not how pilots think (or are trained) when it comes to such failures. Its all very procedural and they go through the relevant checlists and so forth and then often after further liason with engineering the captain makes the final call and that is that. Operations are a concern RE diversions etc. but by and large its all pretty much set out in the procedures what to do.

Smoke in the cockpit is pretty high up on the list of concerrns (especialy after the swissair md11 disaster) so you'd be looking to run a checklist that attempts to elminate the source of the smoke AFTER you have already decided to divert. Part of the reason why smoke in cockpit incidents cause so many bloody diversions many of them not necessary in the end because the actions of the crew then exstinguish the source of smoke anyway within a short period of time but you can't take the chance. Fire on a commerical airliner is a very bad thing. Ltd might be able to provide some examples of checklist items that a 747 pilot would go through for smoke in the cockpit but not an aircraft I fly in the simulator so can't speak to it in specifics.

Its quite funny some of these 'reported' incidents the media are going on about. While many of them are quite trivial even the more significant ones are terribly misreported. Instead of focusing on what the crew/airline did to ensure teh aircraft returned safely to mother earth they become fixated on the cause/s of such incidents (many of which are just SOP for aviation) and search for realy non-existant patterns.

The recent media stories spurred me to do some simulator time on the 767 recently with failure training as i call it. Just going up and doing circuits with the sim set up to 'fail' systems on board....everything from minor stuff like the lights in the cockpit to full on engine fires, depressurisation, hydraulics etc. I had a low engine oil pressure on my right (no.2) engine last time on descent...so go to the checklist, reduce the engine in question to idle, doesn't fix it, ok shutdown engine via fuel cutoff, start APU for extra backup, engage isolation valves in pneumatics, turn on fuel transfer pumps to ensure equal burn of fuel on both sides, get aircraft stable in this configuration. Take out single engine landing checklist, flap 20 only for approach, get new appraoch speeds, trim rudder to compensate for diff. thrust etc. etc. Its all very much set out. The landing I did with one engine out was smoother than the one i did imediately before it where everything ran perfectly. I had a good chuckle at that...first single engine landing i've done in the sim in a long long time but if you follow the procedures it all works out...usually.....

I woudl point out i am just a sim jockey...while extensive our manuals/systems aren't as complex as the real thing (though pretty close for the level D 767 mod) but it gives you an idea of what i mean. Pilots don't panic (and i've been on board real aircraft during engine out training etc.) because it simply doesnt help to get things done. Plenty time to panic when you're dead, its avoiding that outcome that is the trick....

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Ausfire

Mate, how is Qantas over-reacting, its standard procedure to turn around, better to be safe than sorry hey. I work there and was one of the first on that plane, I have been to heaps of other other aircraft with same problem, but all turn out ok due to airline companies having these good procedures in place.

Biggest problem right now is the bloody Media, they could sink Qantas if they keep reporting every minor little incident.

Someone beat me to it. Like ausfire says....its all in the procedures...

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Ausfire

Mate, how is Qantas over-reacting, its standard procedure to turn around, better to be safe than sorry hey. I work there and was one of the first on that plane, I have been to heaps of other other aircraft with same problem, but all turn out ok due to airline companies having these good procedures in place.

Biggest problem right now is the bloody Media, they could sink Qantas if they keep reporting every minor little incident.

Too right, you cant pull up next to a cloud and wait for RACQ to turn up.

[Spudz27]

Just read a story about a lightning strike on a Qantas 717 from Alice Spring to Darwin. So once again all the keyboard warriors are going to come out in force. The media really is soiling the name of the greatest airline in aviation history (safety wise). Personally it will not deter me from flying qantas, but I will gurantee pax are down the more these stories come to light.

[Ausfire]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

I don't think you could say qantas (at least not flight crew) were 'over reacting' andrew. This is not because they are imune to the perception over recent issues but purely because that is not how pilots think (or are trained) when it comes to such failures. Its all very procedural and they go through the relevant checlists and so forth and then often after further liason with engineering the captain makes the final call and that is that. Operations are a concern RE diversions etc. but by and large its all pretty much set out in the procedures what to do.
..

Hit the nail on the head there Swordsman, the Captain is Ultimately the one responsible for the safety of all the crew and passengers.

Funny, we had a problem on a Singapore aircraft about an hour prior to the Qantas one which IMO was a more serious incident but know one even knows or cares, mmmmm. I agree with you EDfutura, I would still fly qantas on the grounds that because of their Over reating, they bring their aircraft home and check it out before flying on. Some Airlines wouldn't!!!!

[ltd]

Originally Posted by EDfutura25

Just read a story about a lightning strike on a Qantas 717 from Alice Spring to Darwin. So once again all the keyboard warriors are going to come out in force. The media really is soiling the name of the greatest airline in aviation history (safety wise). Personally it will not deter me from flying qantas, but I will gurantee pax are down the more these stories come to light.

Not really, the people who are most likely to complain or are scared typically are your very occassional flyers, and would tend to fly jetstar or tiger anyway. The people who say things like "I'll never fly Qantas again" probably have never flown Qantas anyway. Domestically, most Qantas passangers appreciate a free hot cup of coffee, a free meal and the extra legroom. Further, QF may not have the youngest, most pretty cabin crew; but they sure have the most experienced. Once people grow up and realise that the world doesn't revolve around their own sexual gratification they tend to appreciate the professionalism of the QF cabin crew. The one thing that has resonated well with all the passengers affected by the recent incidents is the professionalism of the flight and cabin crews.

As for QF32, this is not a QF problem. It is a Rolls Royce and Airbus problem. Airbus will definately cop some of the blame, and deservedly so.
Here's a list on the A380 from this incident which was also stolen by news.com.au who are now in breach of copyright. See if you can spot the airbus faults which aren't relative to the engine failure.

* Massive fuel leak in the left mid fuel tank (A380 has 11 tanks, including in the horizontal stabiliser on the tail)
* Massive fuel leak in the left inner fuel tank
* A hole on the flap canoe/fairing (big enough to climb through)
* The aft gallery in the fuel system failed, preventing many fuel transfer functions
* Fuel jettison had problems due to the previous problem above
* Large hole in the upper wing surface
* Partial failure of leading edge slats
* Partial failure of speed brakes/ground spoilers
* Shrapnel damage to the flaps
* Crew experienced a total loss of all hydraulic fluid in the Green System (A380 has 2 x 5,000 PSI systems, Green and Yellow)
* Crew were required to perform a manual extension of landing gear
* Experienced a loss of 1 generator and associated systems
* Aircraft had a loss of brake anti-skid system
* Crew were unable to shutdown adjacent number 1 engine using normal method after landing due to major damage to systems
* Crew were unable to shutdown adjacent #1 engine using using the fire switch. Therefore, no fire protection was available for that engine after the explosion in number 2
* ECAM warnings regarding a major fuel imbalance caused by the fuel leak on left side It was unable to be fixed with cross-feeding
* Fuel trapped in Trim Tank (in the tail). Therefore, there was a real possibility of a major center of gravity out-of-balance condition for landing.
* Bus #2 is supposedly automatically powered by Bus #1 in the event of Engine #2 failure – didn’t happen.
* Buses #3 & #4 will supposedly power Bus #2 in the even that the auto transfer from Bus #1 fails – didn’t happen.
* After some time the RAT deployed for no apparent reason, locking out (as a load-shedding function) some still functioning services.
* One of the frequently recurring messages warned of the aircraft approaching the aft C of G limit (the procedure calls for transferring fuel forward), the next message advised of fwd transfer pumps being u/s. This sequence occurred repeatedly.
* Due to the C of G limit, the crew commenced an approach NOT because they’d sorted out all the problems but because they were very worried about the way-out-of-tolerance and steadily worsening lateral imbalance.
* The aircraft stopped with just over 100 metres or runway left, brakes temps climbed to 900C and fuel pouring out of the ruptured tank. Unable to shutdown #1 engine (as previously mentioned).

Yes, Rolls Royce are responsible ultimately but how many redundant systems failed?

O/T, for those of you who are avid aviation fans check out the latest podcast which features captain Bo Corby of NWA 41 who is now famed for being the first American captain of an American civilian plane to land in Iran in 26 years. His diversion to Tehran was the result of a mid air drama in his DC-10 and a possible fire. Check it out here, it is a good one. http://www.flightpodcast.com/episode...41-into-tehran

[Spudz27]

You can't help but think had they been further away it would have been a disasterous outcome. Thankfully they were not. I would hate to have been in the cockpit during that one. Maybe this will become an aircrash investigations story in the future.

[Jason[98.EL]]

ltd very informative post as per normal

Every time i have flown i try to fly QF and will continue to do so but that is because my brother is in maintenance with Qantas and I have always taken the line of buy/travel with the company that i have family or friends working at

Jason

[FTE217]

Good post ltd.......

Exactely right I agree most people who have negative opinions are very infrequent flyers and then ofcourse we have the media loving to make a mole hill out of anything to gain pecking order over their opposition........
I travel for business nearly every month for years and love it when I can fly QF.
Yes they are more expensive most times but I'm satisfied that I am flying with my own people and I can trust them.
Most flights I use is on the 330's to Shanghai return and I love it after being on domestic China Eastern/Southerns - try experiencing those flights compared to domestic QF/Virgin you don't know how good we have it till you do LOL.....
Sadly I use United for my annual US flights having done those trips for 10-15yrs for its far easier for US domestic links re bookings but I love it when I can get back on board QF.
I was only asked the other day knowing I'm back to Shanghai in a few weeks will I use QF due to the recent issues - you bet ya - as far as I'm concerned they are on the ball, identifying the problem/turning back and landing is the best outcome period !

Footnote ltd - yes well Qantas/TAA/Ansett used to have what Virgin have now the younger coke bottle shaped inexperienced crews - doesn't matter to me now I'm 50 my preferences have widened LOL but NO matter how much red I consume those Nanny United stewardess's just can't get me looking twice !